反事實的形意分析：中英文的比較

Abstract

本研究以形式與功能互補為本的分析出發，探討中英文簡單反事實句形意搭配。 在傳統的研究分析裡，中文和英文在語法的表現上有著本質上的差異。第一，相較於英文來說，中文是一種沒有時制標記的語言(參見Lin 2006)。第二，和英文不同的是，中文的語意理解乃為情境導向(discourse-oriented)(參見Li and Thompson 1976)，而非句子導向(sentence-oriented)。然而特別有趣的是，透過語料的觀察，我們發現中英文簡單反事實句在語料上的分佈有著許多的相似性。首先，在中文和英文的簡單反事實句中，知識模態的使用並不會得出反事實的語意，如例(1)下所示：

(1) a.英文：John must have won the game. (#but he didn’t.) b. 中文：張三是一定贏這場比賽的(#可是他卻沒有)。

其次，在中文與英文中，反事實的語意幾乎不能被取消，由下所示： (2) a. 英文：John might/could/should have won the game (#and in fact, he did). b. 中文：張三是應該贏那場比賽的(#他也贏了)。

但是，請特別注意例(2b)，在中文裡，例(2b)可表示兩種語意，一種是表確定的語意解釋，即說話者強調張三在未來贏得比賽的機率很大，相較於「可能」或「可以」所帶出的語意，說話者很確定張三會贏。另一種為本文談論的主軸，即反事實的語意詮釋，表示張三應該贏但是沒有贏。這樣的通性使得我們開始思考：究竟是什麼樣的語言機制可以解釋中文與英文的通性，並且同時又能解釋英文和中文根本語性的不同所衍伸出來不同的語意解釋呢？ 本文主要先從形式語意的角度出發，透過形式語意的框架來研究中英文的簡單反事實句。經由這樣的分析，我們可以一窺形式語意的分析究竟是否能用在中英文的簡單反事實句的語意解釋中，並且得到一個完善的語意分析? 在研究的過程中，我們發現光是只有形式語意的分析是不夠的，我們還須借助功能語法的精隨，也就是語境(context)及預設(presupposition)的考量，提出一套形意搭配方能完整地呈現中英文之間反事實語意的對比。

This paper is a comparative study of the simple counterfactuals in both English and Chinese, illustrated as follows: (1) English a. Past Counterfactual Johnmight/could/should have won the game. (2) Chinese a. Present/Past Counterfactual Zhāngsān sh#westeur045# yīnggāi z#westeur033#i zh#westeur041# lǐ de Zhangsan be should be here DE ‘Zhangsan should be here (but he isn’t/wasn’t).’ b. Past Counterfactual Zhāngsān sh#westeur045# yīnggāi y#westeur046#ng n#westeur033# chǎng bǐs#westeur033#i de Zhāngsān be should win that CL game DE ‘Zhangsan should have won the game (but he didn’t). c. Future Counterfactual Zhāngsān sh#westeur045# yīnggāi m#westeur046#ngtiān q#westeur058# T#westeur034#iběi de Zhangsan be should tomorrow go Taipei DE ‘Zhangsan should have gone to Taipei tomorrow.’ Chinese and English, despite of the difference in the overt tense marking inmorphology, display some striking similarities in forming simple counterfactuals. First, in both English and Chinese, the modals in simple counterfactuals must be interpreted as non-epistemic reading. Secondly, the counterfactuality of simple counterfacuals in both languages is hard to be cancelled. Based on the above illustrations, this paper attempts to investigate the following question: First, how do simple counterfactuals formed in tensed (i.e. English) and tenseless language (i.e. Chinese)? Second, what are the differences between them in terms of their linguistic features? Thirdly, in interpreting counterfactuality, how do we relate the understanding of time to the tensed as well as the tenseless system, with reference to their shared and distinct linguistic functions in these two fundamentally different languages? This paper is different from the previous proposals in analyzing the simple counterfactuals cross-linguistically in an important way. In discussing Chinese and English simple counterfactuals, I propose a complementary approach of formal and functional considerations which is able to give a more complete and well-motivated explanation. The central idea of this complementary approach can be summarized with two points: first, in both English and Chinese, a construction may have more than one meaning, and the conception of meaning relies on the dependencies of the context. Second, since Chinese is a tenseless language, the complementary approach may help us to find the principle that governs the derivation of counterfactuality. Basically, the two languages use different form-meaning mapping strategies to signal counterfactuals. While the irealis modality marked by a Modal Aux appears in both languages, English relies heavily on perfect aspect in marking temporal anteriority, and Chinese relies heavily on the contextual presumption marked by the presuppositional DE. The thesis helps to clarify the issue of counterfactuals that has puzzled linguists for a long time.